I was just reading this article...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/16/MNHO1E0CIM.DTL

...and came across this statement....



...and had a severe attack of laughter.

I mean - seriously! What is the logic here? Do people really think we will miss out on birthing opportunities by allowing gays to marry?

Maybe if we stop gays from marrying each other, they might just maybe marry heterosexually, and have kids?

And is the future of humanity in danger due to a lack of births? Last I looked, our population curved looked something like...



Remember: don't let gays marry, because the future of humanity is at stake here!

Perhaps they think if gay people are allowed to marry, everyone will magically become gay and no one will be breeding anymore?

Surely homophobics like this should rather the gays didnt breed in case they passed on their gayness to their kids?

I guess it's mostly the religion based hate towards homosexuality.

I don't have statistics but I am of the opinion that most staunch religious followers or people with similar closed mentality usually oppose gay marriages. I have seen examples in all religions .

No one person has a right to say what is right or wrong for another person.

\

Maybe if we stop gays from marrying each other, they might just maybe marry heterosexually, and have kids?


arent they already doing this (without marrying that is)>?

you should attend the next Jerry show on incest and tell those loving brothers and sisters and cousins to fight for their rights,,,

Are you noting that gays are already have hetero sex and have kids, due to social pressure? Or are you talking about how gay non-married couples find ways to adopt, and some lesbians get inseminated?

Either way, yes.



But we must prevent gay marriage - the future of our species is at stake! Just look at the picture I posted - humanity is on the verge of extinction due to our low population growth!

no, Im talking about how homosexuals already have HETEROSEXUAL sex and children,,,,,,I havent made any assumptions about their reasons,,just that its obviously already done,,,so its not the issue,,,

do you figure if homosexuals were allowed to marry that they would have less heterosexual child producing sex? ,,because it sure seems the HETEROSEXUALS have plety of children outside of wedlock and that marrying itself doesnt stop the sex

let me add, I dont care whom people prefer to sleep with , what type of sex they like,,etc,,,, thats their business


I am just a proponent of leaving marriage as the example for the FOUNDATION of a society, which is a family, which involves creating families which has to happen from some union of man and woman...

What happens when I marry a man is quite different than if I mate with a woman,, If I marry that man I have the POTENTIAL to begin a new family (while carrying out 'marital ' activities'). The potential for that male female unit to grow 'naturally' into something much bigger and more substantial has quite an impact upon how that community, society, etc,,, will grow and develop. It is no guarantee that the original union of two people will grow, but it has much more potential to than any other type of union. It is the only union, MALE FEMALE , upon which life can come into the world and build the community, society,,etc,,,

Excellent!



I have no reason for believing there would be a net decrease nor a net increase in birth rates due to allowing gays to marry. I would expect both slight increases and slight decreases for various reasons, and have no idea how it would sum.




Exactly!

I mean, no! Heteros are not having enough children - thats why we must call upon the gays to do their part and help keep the race alive! Prevent gay marriage! The fate of our species is at stake!

And I'm a proponent of treating all non-human animals with kindness and compassion (even if its necessary to kill them) - but I still hate it when animal rights groups say ridiculously stupid, illogical, or factually incorrect things.

I'm not arguing for gay marriage - I'm arguing against the stupidity of implying that permitting gay marriage might endanger the future of our species. Some of them call us 'breeders', which is often accurate; our species does need breeders, but judging from the chart - we seem to have an excess.

too many people are engaging in irresponsible sex, whatever their fetishes or preferences may be,, they arent thinking through the consequences,,,,,

I would not vote to BAN gay sex, but I just wouldnt vote to PROMOTE it either by making it a LEGALLY aknowledged union, where do we go from there,,,

the legal issue of marriage for me lies in what it represents,, a foundation,,,,,, there is no other union that can compare to male and female in the potential IMPACT it has on the population

And therefore, there is a need for more loving childless couples to be adoptive parents. Wait a second! Suddenly I am arguing in favor of gay marriage! You tricked me!




I hope the whole issue of gay marriage doesn't boil down to whether or not it might encourage some gays to have more sex. There are far more important things to consider, like the future of our species, which is about to be exterminated for a lack of breeders!

Sorry, I am endlessly amused by the quote in the OP.

<---- filled with mirth.

The basic thing of this is.......as the family unit goes, so goes society along with it. And.......as sex has been trivialized, casualized, and in general made as no big deal, the family has suffered because of it. I don't think it's any coincidence, that.....since around the time of the sexual revolution, the divorce rate has risen to where it's now at around 50 percent.

In order for a civilization to survive and thrive, there needs to be some absolutes. What we've done in the last 40 years is changed them to where are there really aren't any left anymore, and we're suffering because of it.

In the case of marriage, consider the fact that first off strictly from a heterosexual standpoint, men are taught anymore they don't need the woman for anything beyond sex, while women are taught not to trust men because of how many men treat sex and women in such a casual, objectifying way. In turn......this makes it harder for real relationships to foster, if so many men basically have no need for women outside of getting off, and the women distrust the men, and are even told themselves they don't need them.

Then even the ones that DO get married or involved and have kids, end up doing so for the wrong reasons, and don't have the patience or self control to see things through more often then not, leading to break up after break up, and broken home after broken home. This causes the kids to suffer and sort of be on their own with not a lot of guidance because of the mistakes of their parents.

So already if you want something real it is very hard to find anymore, and when you factor homosexuality into the mix it makes it even harder, as people who otherwise may have been available to you just aren't.

There's a saying, if it isn't broke then don't fix it. The marriage and family system did not need changing, but we have changed it anyway and now we are seeing the consequences of that.

I agree, family dynamics have already changed far too much,,

I think too in turn as the family has fell apart so have morals, there's not that stable group to go to anymore for guidance, and for love for that matter you know? So we sort of get thrown to the wolves. I know that happened to me, everything I've learned that matters in the world I really had to learn on my own, with my parents not marrying and being somewhat ignorant to things.

we may be in the minority, but I do believe there is much to be said for the NATURAL order of family,, with the whole mother and father and children and authority thing,,,,

Same here. I really think too that.....a child growing up needs a balance. A man and woman each offer special qualities unique to themselves. The man can't offer what the woman does, nor can the woman offer what a man does. The man is sort of the protector and provider, whereas the woman is more the nurturer. To be well rounded, I truly think a child needs a mix of both sides, so that they don't end up either overly physical and masculine, or overly emotional and feminine.

That isn't to say a child can't make it ok with one parent, BUT it makes it a little more difficult I think if you only get one side as opposed to both.

again realizing I am in the minority, as a single parent, I TOTALLY agree...it was meant to be done with a mother and father

Yeah, it's really difficult on your own isn't it?